And the Zimmerman verdict is...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm frankly more perpelxed as to how people on this board can have so much empathy for this emotionally unstable Clint Eastwood-wannabee and not the teenager he shot dead........

Indeed... it's as if they also want to shoot "bad people"...

because trayvon was a thug living a more and more violent lifestyle, the path he took was one were you either end up in jail or dead. his phone records were full of him bragging about fights and taking drugs

Empathy?
There was an altercation and someone was shot and killed
There was an arrest driven by media assisted pubic outcry
There was a trial driven by media assisted pubic outcry
There was a not guilty verdict rendered by a jury after hearing the case, dispite the media having already condemmed the accused for the past year and change.
There is now outcry because the verdict is not what they demanded but that's too bad.

So what exactly is your point?

In most cases I understand that due process works adequately. In some instances (such as this one) a review of due process is inevitable. As it just so happens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 95835.html

In other words, it didnt work to your liking this time so lets revamp the justice system so that emotion, feelings, and "what's right" , can be used in lieu of evidence. That is, of course, whenever popular or convenient.
It might backfire if the feds look into state prosecutor Angela Corey's track record, not only in her handling of this case but her whole reign of terror while in that office.

At least we can agree an investigation into Angela Corey's track record would not be a bad idea.

I think our feathered friend got you dead to rights already, but to further emphasize, there's an old lawyers adage that goes exceptional cases make for bad law, and this is a perfect example. What change in the law do you think is needed because of this case? Remember that "stand your ground" was not invoked, this was a simple self defense case, and the reason for the acquittal was reasonable doubt. Are you seriously going to suggest that we (further) weaken the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof because a case didn't go the way you think it should have?

Also, the DoJ is going to rattle its sabre a bit and then do nothing, they have even less of a case than the state people did, and they didn't have much of a case to start with. Lest you say anything else, I'll mention that Florida has a statute on the book providing civil immunity for those cleared in self defense incidents, so a civil suit isn't going anywhere either. We have the same law in my state, along with the provision that if the state charges you and loses, they're on the hook for your legal fees as well, I'm not sure if Florida has an equivalent, but I wouldn't bet against it.

You were there and saw the whole thing, and/or are psychic and can peer into peoples minds to know their motivations? Why weren't you called as a witness at the trial?

Is this true?

That Martin and his girlfriend had this conversation?

Didn't Jeantel also mention that Martin infer that Zimmerman might be gay, and therefore might rape their family?

Interesting.

So Martin sees some guy watching him and his first reaction is to think that the guy is a gay rapist who's out to sodomize his whole family? Is that kind of thinking not homophobic in the extreme?

Could it be that Zimmerman saved himself from a hate crime?

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is the jury, in the Zimmerman case, could not really decide to apply punitive measures (as proposed by the prosecution) because there were no witnesses and therefore (crucially) no evidence to prosecute Zimmerman.

The review maybe will trawl through the case to ensure there was nothing overlooked that may add weight to initiate a retrial. The circumstances leading to the death are highly unusual and deserve a second look.

I assume you mean a federal civil rights trial, not a retrial. A retrial of the state's case would be double jeopardy. There can be no "second look" at the state's case. The Feds can only look at potential civil rights violations & prosecution on those grounds is doubtful since the FBI has already said it found no proof of racism on Zimmerman's part. The Feds will grandstand a bit, declare they're investigating, eventually declaring that, though they're convinced of Zimmerman's guilt, sadly there's not enough evidence to proceed.

Ahh I see. ..I was looking at this through Australian eyes where a retrial is possible under Australian state law if new evidence is bought to light.

a civil suite asured.but a federal civil rights trial,i doubt.
in the case of the california highway patrolman who was a seriel rapist.in those days there was no DNA,and the shrewed officer knew how to destroy evidence that was there.after his murder rape aquital,the angle on his federal rights civil rights conviction was:
an officer of the law taking radar late at night on remote highways and using a traffic stop to get a female under his control.so a goverment employee kidnapping a citizen without an arrest warrant.unless 62 in a 55 is a crime(no).
there was the civil rights angle.or the clear racial implications in the mississippi burning movie.Z confrontd T.V but did not kidnap him.with T's pot use,proving Z used racial profiling not facts as grouns to confront T will be hard

So under federal US Law it's still possible for this to be deemed a civil rights violation?